I’ll start with a loaded question.. is there something inherently unreliable about 3” 1911’s? I have one 1911, a TRP in 10mm so they are a new type of handgun for me. The 3” 1911 that Springfield use to make seems it was plagued with issues from what I read, probably the reason they quit making it. All that seems left are the Ultra size Kimbers. I know, there are much better choice for carry..this isn’t even necessarily for that. It’s just something on the “want” list.

It's a timing thing. Bruce Gray explained the difficulty of getting a 3" 1911 to run well here a number of years ago. I can't explain the technical details from memory, but maybe someone has a link to that.

Interesting.. thanks for that. I’ll do a search and see if I can find it.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
It's a timing thing. Bruce Gray explained the difficulty of getting a 3" 1911 to run well here a number of years ago. I can't explain the technical details from memory, but maybe someone has a link to that.

From what I do remember, the shorter, lighter slide cycles faster leaving a very small window for the magazine to get a round up into position to be fed into the chamber. Everything needs to work in perfect time to avoid a malfunction; getting that timing right is tricky.

If I can be blunt, 3" 1911s are just a "NO."

If you really want one, you will need to accept that it's not going to run with a variety of ammunition. That's about it.

A "commander" length will still work reliably with a range of ammo. Take it to 3", and well, you need to absolutely be sure it likes your ammo.

Generally I don't recommend them to people I like.

I haven't read anything bad about the Colt Defender or New Agent. (The Defender has conventional sights, the New Agent just a groove in the top of the slide.)

Circa 2007 while shooting at an indoor range, the shooter next to me had a three-inch 1911 (don't know the make) that wouldn't fire two consecutive shots.

The Springfield EMP 3“ 1911 series seem like good sellers for them?

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The Springfield EMP 3“ 1911 series seem like good sellers for them?

EMP’s don’t come in .45 do they?
Good info folks, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
If I can be blunt, 3" 1911s are just a "NO."

If you really want one, you will need to accept that it's not going to run with a variety of ammunition. That's about it.

My Colt Defender ran nearly flawlessly on eight (8) different kinds of .45 ACP ball and JHP ammo, 49 rounds in total, very first time I had it out.

My range report: So I Ended-Up With A Colt Defender. Update: Range Report Added.

In the last post of that thread I'd run another 42 rounds down the pipe w/o a single hiccup. (Probably all ball ammo.)

TBH: I think the pistol may still be breaking in. The LGS where I bought it noted it had wear characteristic of being carried a lot, but shot very little.

It is my understanding Colt Defenders are exceedingly reliable little 1911s.

^^ Thanks for that. I’m reading the post you linked.

Just 9 & 40

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
The Springfield EMP 3“ 1911 series seem like good sellers for them?

EMP’s don’t come in .45 do they?
Good info folks, thank you.

I think a Dan Wesson Eco with a 3.5” barrel or the Colt Defender would scratch this itch nicely.

Sig C3

It's very simple, guys. The 3" 1911s are more picky than their larger brothers. Yours runs with a bunch of ammo? Good.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Sig C3

I don't know how that compares to the Ultra Compact, but I can tell you the Ultra Compact did not impress me at all. And that was going in thinking I was in love with that pistol. YMMV.

Nor, come to think of it, did the Sig Scorpion 1911 I fondled. So far me and Sig 1911s have not hit it off.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
From what I do remember, the shorter, lighter slide cycles faster leaving a very small window for the magazine to get a round up into position to be fed into the chamber. Everything needs to work in perfect time to avoid a malfunction; getting that timing right is tricky.

Kimber must have got it right then. The Ultra Carry II is a good little pistol.

quote:

is there something inherently unreliable about 3” 1911’s?

Yes. And I am loosely paraphrasing what Mr. Gray had to say about such things: The reduced length creates a slide velocity such that it necessitates one of two things: an overpowered spring to slow it down - which makes it finicky on ammo, or a standard spring - which makes ammo choice easier, but makes recoil harsh and wears the spring and the gun prematurely. I believe he explained it as one too many standard deviations away from original design.

Imagine the functions of the gun in the firing sequence as movements, and imagine the length of the slide as time. If you have five steps: firing, unlocking, recoil/ejection, loading, and lock-up, do you want to space those movements out over a shorter or longer time? Can it be done in five seconds? Can it be done in three? Sure it can, but which way is more repeatable with correct function (reliability)?

How far we modify any mechanical thing away from its original design will have an affect on that thing's function. Can you bore out a V8 engine and put in bigger pistons? Sure you can. But how many times can you oversize it before you run into dependability issues? Is .030 over too much? Is .080?

As Arc said - if you have a 3" that runs a variety of ammo, great! Don't forget to change your springs, and do it often. But it will not run as well or as long - all things being equal - as its 5" counterpart. As they both maintain the same constant (ammo - and more specifically, pressure) it is not physically possible. It's not a preference thing. It's a mathematical certainty.

I have owned an older Colt Officer's ACP, and two Colt Defender's. All were more ammo sensitive than I would like for a pistol I trust my life to, and the edges of the slide (horizontally, along the frame rails) on the Defender's were sharp enough to shave with.

Considering that they are already substantially heavy guns, I would steer anyone smart enough to listen toward a Commander sized gun. Yes, they are a bit bigger, but they are worth the extra effort to conceal. You get better terminal performance from your ammo, a longer sight radius lending to better accuracy, a full grip, a bit more capacity, easier to find reliable magazines, and better reliability.

If you are stubborn enough to still be carrying a 1911 for defensive purposes, do yourself a favor and learn to dress around a Commander or Government model sized gun. Better yet... Enjoy your antique pistols on the range, and get a modern polymer framed/striker fired carry gun.

I think we always hear about problems more than good experiences so they might get a bad reputation that is undeserved. I owned a couple EMPs and there were a couple brands of ammo that it did not run well but it ran lots of other fmj and hollow points with no problem. It may have been the most accurate pistol I've ever tried.

I have a 3" Kimber CDP made back in 2000, some 30 years ago. Since I don't remember E-mail being available back then, I'm not certain mine ever got that message about reliability. This little CDP not only has been as reliable as can be, it also has the best "carry melt" treatment I've ever seen on a 1911.